Does this sound right to you?

[Chester]

Short version: A DM threatened a punitive alignment change if I followed through with hitting an NPC tavern owner for repeatedly insulting our party members, even after saving his life. 1) Are there XP penalties for an alignment change (3.5 rules) via DM fiat? 2) Is an alignment change from CG applicable for, as the DM put it, "attacking an ally?"

Long version:
Our group rotates DMs. This particular player's strengths include involved, immersive, complex plots. The weakness that accompanies this is that there's no room for variation. If you behave in a manner that changes the plot or "messes with" his NPCs, he will declare that we're "rewinding" and altering things to get back on track.

In this particular adventure, there was commotion in the town involving a ranting and raving (obviously frightened) man. When one of our party members went to investigate, an NPC told him to "mind your own effing business" and was called all manner of abusive things.

OK, fine.

The town is attacked. We all fight side by side to eliminate the threat. Mean NPC survives.

After the fight, my PC tells mean NPC, "I think you owe my friend an apology." Mean NPC hurls insults.

I declare that I'm punching him in the face for nonlethal damage.

DM: "If you do that, I'm forcing an alignment change for attacking an ally."

Ummm.......OK?

Either this guy is attempting to punish me for hitting his NPC or just doesn't understand alignment.

Either way, I'd gladly accept the change if it doesn't really come with any penalties. Or, I could just "follow the script" and wait for the next DM's turn so I can actually role play.

EDIT: Was I aware that this would upset him? Absolutely.

Weigh in here for your thoughts.

[AvatarVecna]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/6975776/images/1259810099311.jpg

A little more seriously, this is you trying to go off the rails, and the DM is punishing you for it in a way that doesn't actually fit the crime. This guy was not your ally;in fact, he was nothing but abusive to you. Smacking him is perfectly in character, and alignment isn't supposed to be that limiting; it's supposed to be a general shorthand for your character; characters have a personality and a backstory with an alignment attached, not an alignment with a character pigeonholed into it.

There's no real penalty for an alignment change, unless your class has an alignment restriction (those are stupid too, but whatever). Beyond that, what's he going to do? Changing your alignment towards Law makes no sense for smacking an "ally", because that's something a Chaotic indivudual would do. That only leaves...Chaotic Neutral. While I don't usually like it when they're played this way, there's nothing a CN individual can't claim fits their alignment, because they can claim that some random, made-up mental disorder compelled them to do it.

[Werephilosopher]

Short version:1) Are there XP penalties for an alignment change (3.5 rules) via DM fiat?

It has to be DM fiat.


2) Is an alignment change from CG applicable for, as the DM put it, "attacking an ally?"

One action doesn't change your alignment unless it's an incredibly drastic action. What you did is a very minor action in the ballpark of chaotic neutral.


"plots" "changes the plot" "messes with his NPCs" "get back on track"

This is the kind of DM who goes into the game with his own plot in mind. He doesn't realize, or else doesn't care, that the plot is supposed to flow naturally from his own framework meshed with the actions of the players. He just wants it to be his game, with the rest of you spectating. That your group changes DMs often is good for preventing this from having long-term in-game effects, but it could still be frustrating every time it's his turn. Have the other members of the group talked about this or seemed bothered by it?

[Jay R]

It's not a punishment. It's simply a correct description.

If you have a character who is short with a beard, who uses an urgrosh, who started with +2 CON and -2 CHA, with +2 on Appraise and stonecraft skills, then the DM is correct to say, "The character sheet should say "dwarf', not 'elf'."

Similarly, if the character beats up people for things they say, the character sheet should say 'Neutral' or 'Evil', not 'Good'.

Physically assaulting somebody who is not physically threatening anyone is a criminal action. No culture considers it good. Either stop claiming to be "Good", or stop committing actions deemed unacceptable in all civilized societies.

It's not a question of "a single action." It's a question of an approach, an attitude. If that's going to be your approach, then your character isn't good, and you aren't interested in playing him as good. The Good character in the group, if there is one, is the guy who stopped you, saying, "He's an ass, not an enemy. You don't need to hit him."

Why would an alignment change to the alignment you actually want to play bother you?

[erok0809]

It's not a punishment. It's simply a correct description.

If you have a character who is short with a beard, who uses an urgrosh, who started with +2 CON and -2 CHA, with +2 on Appraise and stonecraft skills, then the DM is correct to say, "The character sheet should say "dwarf', not 'elf'."

Similarly, if the character beats up people for things they say, the character sheet should say 'Neutral' or 'Evil', not 'Good'.

Physically assaulting somebody who is not physically threatening anyone is a criminal action. No culture considers it good. Either stop claiming to be "Good", or stop committing actions deemed unacceptable in all civilized societies.

It's not a question of "a single action." It's a question of an approach, an attitude. If that's going to be your approach, then your character isn't good, and you aren't interested in playing him as good. The Good character in the group, if there is one, is the guy who stopped you, saying, "He's an ass, not an enemy. You don't need to hit him."

Why would an alignment change to the alignment you actually want to play bother you?

Even good people have bad moments. How do we know this is how the character always acts? You have to look at all of the characters actions to find their alignment, not just one. Also, it was for nonlethal damage. That's not even that bad, that's taking a light swing at the guy, and the guy deserved it for being an ass. Not every good character is exalted.

[Razanir]

This is the kind of DM who goes into the game with his own plot in mind. He doesn't realize, or else doesn't care, that the plot is supposed to flow naturally from his own framework meshed with the actions of the players.

http://complex.gmu.edu/www-phys/phys510/assignments/exam2/sde/bbridge.jpg

This is what a plot should look like. You can have fixed points in time, as long as you give agency on how to get there. I'd even say you can keep them tighter bound along a path if there's good reason, be it legitimately few options or a good enough world that they don't mind not deviating as much. But what shouldn't happen is one and only one set path.

[Anlashok]

[QUOTE=Jay R;19678972]snipQUOTE]
Beyond the concern of railroading, I think Jay R really perfectly illustrates the "Someone of X alignment only behaves a particular way in my head so if you don't follow those exact parameters at all times then you're clearly not X alignment" mindset that he shares with a lot of people (which your DM might be a part of).

[Razanir]

snip

We all mess up. To borrow language from religion, we all sin. We all do things that aren't Good. So thus, we wouldn't be able to be Good. But we also help other people, and thus can't be called Evil. Similar logic applies to Law and Chaos. By your logic, the only way you can be anything other than True Neutral is if you're from an outer plane and your alignment is so infused into the core of your being that you literally cannot do anything else.

[Necroticplague]

1. Even if this was an evil action, unless an action is very drastic, one thin won't change your alignment.
2.This is a minor evil at worst. Decking someone who owes you their life is a minor error at worst. Evil would be killing him and saying "he owed me his life, and clearly wasn't appreciative, so I took what was rightfully mine by force." This guy barely even qualifies as an ally, and you're doing nonlethal damage specifically. Honestly, it seems more a neutral action than a good or evil one.
3. No, an alignment shift doesn't come with an XP penalty. All being a different alignment does is effect what some magic does to you and what afterlife you end up in.

[Jay R]

Beyond the concern of railroading, I think Jay R really perfectly illustrates the "Someone of X alignment only behaves a particular way in my head so if you don't follow those exact parameters at all times then you're clearly not X alignment" mindset that he shares with a lot of people (which your DM might be a part of).

Something I have never said, never believed, and that is not consistent with what I said.

It would be more accurate to portray my position as saying that there are some things that no person of Good alignment would do.


Even good people have bad moments.

This isn't a "bad moment". This is a violent criminal act. It is not true that all people have those.


How do we know this is how the character always acts? You have to look at all of the characters actions to find their alignment, not just one.

Yes. Like I said, "If that's going to be your approach, then your character isn't good, and you aren't interested in playing him as good." [Emphasis added]


Also, it was for nonlethal damage. That's not even that bad, that's taking a light swing at the guy, and the guy deserved it for being an ass. Not every good character is exalted.

A light swing is not non-lethal damage. If it doesn't do actual damage, then it isn't damage at all.

Non-lethal damage includes beating somebody up, breaking their nose, and torture.

There is no society in which doing committing a violent crime against somebody because he's an ass is acceptable. People are asses when playing D&D all the time. If somebody takes a punch at somebody in my home, I will call the police.


1. Even if this was an evil action, unless an action is very drastic, one thin won't change your alignment.
2.This is a minor evil at worst.

Here we come to our actual point of disagreement. This is a very drastic action. If you do this in real life, and the victim of your violent crime decides to hold you to the actual consequences of your action, you will be arrested, convicted, serve time in jail, and be a known violent offender forever after. It will change your life. It is not a minor evil.

[Razanir]

What about Robin Hood? I know of no civilized society that considers theft a good thing, and yet he's often considered CG. Also, would anyone be up for moving this discussion to a separate thread to curtail the derailment?

[BowStreetRunner]

Accept the alignment change without complaint.
Ignore the new alignment and have your character behave according to the old alignment.
Wait until the DM throws another forced alignment change on your character as punishment for not acting according to his new alignment.

[Necroticplague]

Here we come to our actual point of disagreement. This is a very drastic action. If you do this in real life, and the victim of your violent crime decides to hold you to the actual consequences of your action, you will be arrested, convicted, serve time in jail, and be a known violent offender forever after. It will change your life. It is not a minor evil.

And? The fact assault is illegal doesn't mean anything on a cosmological scale. Compared to all the other things that are also Evil, decking someone once for being unappreciative of saving their life is relatively low on the scale. Nonlethal damage even indicates you weren't trying to seriously harm them. You at least show enough respect for their life to intentionally make sure they keep it. It'd be one thing if he beat the jerk within half an inch of his life, but this is just one blow. In the grand scene of things, this is a drop in the ocean.

(Also, torture does lethal damage, not nonlethal.)

[AMX]

There is no society in which doing committing a violent crime against somebody because he's an ass is acceptable.

Actually, there a many societies where "a light beating" is considered the appropriate response to "mouthing off."
I'm not saying that any of those are particularly "Good" societies, and there are usually some caveats there (a noble can "correct" a peasant, but not the other way round), but your claim that "no society considers this good" is simply wrong.

[erok0809]

Jay R, can I get something straight? Is the argument that you're making that a truly Good character wouldn't even think of taking the swing at the guy, and instead would look to de-escalate the conflict in another manner; thus, since the character in question chose to take the swing, he cannot be Good?

If so, I believe we have different opinions on what Good is. I think that argument works perfectly fine if you replace Good with Exalted. An Exalted character would most likely never take a swing at a guy who wasn't actively murdering babies in front of him or her, and even then he might try to just knock them out and try to convert them to the Good side of the alignment chart. But that should only apply to Exalted characters, in my opinion. A Good character can take a swing at a guy who, while not being threatening to his actual being, is being belligerent and insulting, while still remaining on Team Good. I wouldn't even have a Paladin fall for that; this single act is Neutral at worst for me, because the guy is provoking a fight by being belligerent and insulting, even if he didn't actually throw the first punch.

If that isn't the argument you're making, can you tell me what it is so I'm clear on it and can think of a more proper response?

[Arbane]

Um, guys, this is D&D. A game where KILLING PEOPLE is considered a 'neutral' act, as long as they were actively hostile.

Punching someone is, at absolute worst, also neutral.

[Azoth]

I have got to agree here. Decking someone for being a world class jackass is not evil, or enough of a reason to change your alignment. Consider it negative reinforcement to dissuade further applications of an unwanted action. It is no more evil than sticking a dog's nose in its poop when it poops on the floor, or swatting a child on the backside for throwing a tantrum in public. Sometimes it is the only way an individual will learn they are acting inappropriately.

[LooseCannoneer]

A light swing is not non-lethal damage. If it doesn't do actual damage, then it isn't damage at all.

Non-lethal damage includes beating somebody up, breaking their nose, and torture.


Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Unarmed strikes are nonlethal damage, and I would dispute the label of nonlethal for many types of torture.

[Necroticplague]

Unarmed strikes are nonlethal damage, and I would dispute the label of nonlethal for many types of torture.

The rules actually flat-out disagree with 'nonlethal damage is torture', given that the actual rules for torture inflict lethal damage (and thus run a serious risk of killing the person you're trying to talk too if you aren't careful.

[Nifft]

Um, guys, this is D&D. A game where KILLING PEOPLE is considered a 'neutral' act, as long as they were actively hostile.

Only ugly people!

[Twurps]

..........
Here we come to our actual point of disagreement. This is a very drastic action. If you do this in real life, and the victim of your violent crime decides to hold you to the actual consequences of your action, you will be arrested, convicted, serve time in jail, and be a known violent offender forever after. It will change your life. It is not a minor evil.
emphasis added
Even if I agreed this argument is valid in d&d (d&d is nor real life after all): That would only indicate the act was unlawful, so would indicate a shift toward chaotic. Unlawfull acts can still be good. And in this case it very well might be. After all, he was standing up for a fellow team mate without anything to gain for himself. Doing so meant putting the good of others above that of his own. That's actually pretty good in my book.

[TheYell]

1. You ordered him to apologize for talking to somebody else, which is out of line. Then you punched him without warning, which means either he draws a knife and kills you, or he is a sissyboy. That's generally the rule in societies where men pack belt knives.

2. You created chaos and not for a real good reason.

3. How do you know what the NPC is going to be to you? Your DM probably doesn't want you two fighting each other.

[Werephilosopher]

There is no society in which doing committing a violent crime against somebody because he's an ass is acceptable. People are asses when playing D&D all the time. If somebody takes a punch at somebody in my home, I will call the police.

You aren't talking about Good and Evil, you're talking about Law and Chaos. How society judges a given action has no bearing on the Goodness or Evilness of the action.


Here we come to our actual point of disagreement. This is a very drastic action. If you do this in real life, and the victim of your violent crime decides to hold you to the actual consequences of your action, you will be arrested, convicted, serve time in jail, and be a known violent offender forever after. It will change your life. It is not a minor evil.

The action is minor. Everyone else's reactions may be dramatic, but that doesn't affect the action's moral impact.

[Frostthehero]

1. accept alignment change
2. obtain box of brown mold
3. travel to volcano
4. throw mold into volcano

[IZ42]

This is definitely a Chaotic Act, not a Evil Act. The NPC in question insulted and verbally abused an ally and friend of you, and AFAIK, standing up for a friend is generally a non-evil act. So no, I don't feel an alignment change is necessary (hell, I'd deck someone if they went around insulting my friends, especially if we just saved their butt, though I'm not the most saintly of people).

@Werephilosopher: To be fair, rape and murder are against the law, and they're definitely evil. Though politicians are lawful, and they're also definitely evil.

[JDL]

1. Declare your monocle pops off.
2. Remove your calfskin glove.
3. Deliver a slap across the chest with said glove.
4. Demand a duel of honour in your best British accent.
5. Insist on using the Marquess of Queensbury rules for the noble art of pugilism.
6. Proceed to said fisticuffs and give that old boy a good drubbing.

Lawful method accomplished!

[Nifft]

1. Declare your monocle pops off.
2. Remove your calfskin glove.
3. Deliver a slap across the chest with said glove.
4. Demand a duel of honour in your best British accent.
5. Insist on using the Marquess of Queensbury rules for the noble art of pugilism.
6. Proceed to said fisticuffs and give that old boy a good drubbing.

Lawful method accomplished!

Nah, that just makes you Chaotic British.

(It's suspected that Chaotic British is the alignment of football goers.)

[Andezzar]

It would be more accurate to portray my position as saying that there are some things that no person of Good alignment would do.Possibly, but is a slap one of those actions?


Yes. Like I said, "If that's going to be your approach, then your character isn't good, and you aren't interested in playing him as good." [Emphasis added]It does not look like it was his approach. He and his team mates were insulted before, they saved the insulting person along with the rest of the town and he continues to insult them when he was told that an apology would be appropriate. Only when the jerk insulted him again was he punched. That looks more liek a reaction. not the best one of course. Still if this forces an alignment change, helping the next granny across the road would also force one.


A light swing is not non-lethal damage. If it doesn't do actual damage, then it isn't damage at all.

Non-lethal damage includes beating somebody up, breaking their nose, and torture.There is no way of attacking without dealing damage. Also tell me how to sleep off a broken nose.


Here we come to our actual point of disagreement. This is a very drastic action. If you do this in real life, and the victim of your violent crime decides to hold you to the actual consequences of your action, you will be arrested, convicted, serve time in jail, and be a known violent offender forever after. It will change your life. It is not a minor evil.That is for the courts to decide. Being accused is not the same as being convicted.



Accept the alignment change without complaint.
Ignore the new alignment and have your character behave according to the old alignment.
Wait until the DM throws another forced alignment change on your character as punishment for not acting according to his new alignment.
My thoughts exactly.


1. Declare your monocle pops off.
2. Remove your calfskin glove.
3. Deliver a slap across the chest with said glove.
4. Demand a duel of honour in your best British accent.
5. Insist on using the Marquess of Queensbury rules for the noble art of pugilism.
6. Proceed to said fisticuffs and give that old boy a good drubbing.

Lawful method accomplished!Only if that town/country/whatever allows duelling.

[Inevitability]

Nah, that just makes you Chaotic British.

(It's suspected that Chaotic British is the alignment of football goers.)

It's also the alignment of those heretics who dare drink their afternoon tea at 3 PM. :smalltongue:

[Evolved Shrimp]

This is a violent criminal act.

That is not true, if stated as an immutable absolute. There may be legal systems that classify this behavior as a criminal act. Perhaps the contemporary US system is one of them, although even there I’m not sure – it wouldn’t be, for instance, in case of self-defense (which this is not) or given other sufficiently extenuating circumstances. Continued verbal abuse might just be one of those circumstances. (Can’t say one way or the other; I’m not not enough of an expert on US justice.)

However a judge in Chicago 2015 would view this action, we know that there are or were other legal systems. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Old Testament, where a basic principle was “an eye for an eye”. This does not fit exactly, but would allow you to hit back if hit without committing a crime. There’s a vaguely similar principle today in some European countries, where normally no one voluntarily taking part in a brawl can bring charges against another participant.

There were feudal and similar societies where people of some standing might even have been required to “defend their honor” when insulted, particularly if the insult came from a person of a lesser class.

So, the general statement that this behavior must be a criminal act – even in a fantasy setting with unknown laws – does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

[Lapsed Pacifist]

There are lots of fictional characters who are broadly Good (Usually in the Chaotic sense, but not always) who aren't above decking people. See Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace, Sam Vimes, Jimmy McNulty, Sherlock Holmes, Thor, Harry Potter, etc.

[JDL]

Only if that town/country/whatever allows duelling.

It's not dueling to the death. It's a boxing match for the prize of honor. Unless you're in a country that bans boxing it should be perfectly lawful. That's why you insist on the rules being enforced to ensure a fair fight. I'd be interested to see the country that bans sports on the basis that they're illegal. Plus, if he refuses to step in the ring, you get to call him a liar and a coward to his face in front of everyone.

[IZ42]

It's not dueling to the death. It's a boxing match for the prize of honor. Unless you're in a country that bans boxing it should be perfectly lawful. That's why you insist on the rules being enforced to ensure a fair fight. I'd be interested to see the country that bans sports on the basis that they're illegal. Plus, if he refuses to step in the ring, you get to call him a liar and a coward to his face in front of everyone.

No, because insulting an NPC obviously forces an alignment change for belittling someone.

[Arbane]

No, because insulting an NPC obviously forces an alignment change for belittling someone.

I'd say this deserves the Font of GM Idiocy, wouldn't you?

[Segev]

Hitting the guy was CN behavior. He'd insulted your friend and offended you and was unrepentant about it. You engaged in minor violence, culturally considered in most D&D-style settings as being approximately equivalent (and definitely appropriate) in severity to hurling repeated insults. It wasn't exactly "good," but you don't have to always perform Good acts all the time to be Good-aligned. A single CN action is hardly going to budge your CG alignment.

And even then? It's not necessarily neutral enough to budge your alignment if you do it FREQUENTLY. Again, it's considered appropriate as a response to the kind of abuse this guy is reported to have hurled. Giving him a chance to recant and restraining yourself to a punitive sock to the face is within the bounds of CG behavior.

[Nifft]

Spanking children who disrespect their elders is ___.

Smacking peasants who disrespect their betters is ___.

(I'm guessing those will NOT be Chaotic for most people.)

[Werephilosopher]

@Werephilosopher: To be fair, rape and murder are against the law, and they're definitely evil. Though politicians are lawful, and they're also definitely evil.

They aren't Evil actions because they're against the law, they are Evil actions that are also against the law. They'd still be Evil even if they were legally permissible.

[erok0809]

Spanking children who disrespect their elders is ___.

Smacking peasants who disrespect their betters is ___.

(I'm guessing those will NOT be Chaotic for most people.)

You're right, my answer for that isn't "Chaotic," it's "Normal". It certainly isnt "Evil".

[Red Fel]

I'd say this deserves the Font of GM Idiocy, wouldn't you?

The font of what, now?

For the record, OP, if smacking a friend because he's making an idiot of himself were an Evil act, Leroy Jethro Gibbs would be Asmodeus.

https://xrixterweb.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tumblr_lkdr0omfvq1qf7p0ro1_400.gif
http://i.imgur.com/dFKwd9W.gif
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1556923/gibb-slap-o.gif

The guy is so LG it hurts. He uses light physical abuse for a variety of family-friendly reasons. He smacks his friends from a place of love. If he didn't care, he wouldn't hit them.

Striking an ally is not an Evil act, provided it wasn't done with true malice.

That said? He's the DM. He gets to make those calls. He's wrong, but he does get to make those calls.

[JustIgnoreMe]

*sigh*

Say it with me, everyone: 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. Never has, never will. You can have a Lawful Good criminal, you can have a Chaotic Evil lawyer.

[AvatarVecna]

*sigh*

Say it with me, everyone: 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. 'Lawful alignment' does not mean 'obeys the law'. Never has, never will. You can have a Lawful Good criminal, you can have a Chaotic Evil lawyer.

"Sir, what evidence do you have to support this new insanity plea?"

"Well, they hired me to defend them."

[TheYell]

you can have a Chaotic Evil lawyer.

Not for long, they watch out for those guys.

JUDGE: Well, we're approaching the hour of adjournment--
CE JD: Nuts to you, I'm winning!

[Red Fel]

"Sir, what evidence do you have to support this new insanity plea?"

"Well, they hired me to defend them."

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/and-justice-for-all-movie-misquote-captioned.gif

Well, he gets the C right, in any case, although the point of that movie was to show just how C the whole system is.

[JustIgnoreMe]

Not for long, they watch out for those guys.

JUDGE: Well, we're approaching the hour of adjournment--
CE JD: Nuts to you, I'm winning!
Chaotic Evil is neither stupid, nor lacking in ability to form and execute long term plans. A "Hollywood Psychopath" lawyer could be Chaotic Evil.

[Berenger]

Physically assaulting somebody who is not physically threatening anyone is a criminal action. No culture considers it good.

This is just plain wrong. A prussian officer or a japanese samurai answering verbal insults with violence would act in full accordance with their respective cultures values and expectations. Failing to do so would be perceived as weak, dishonorable and in some cases literally unlawful behaviour, not "good" behaviour.

[lord_khaine]

You're right, my answer for that isn't "Chaotic," it's "Normal". It certainly isnt "Evil".

Im not certain i would like to know in what kind of hell hole farmers still get smacked around for not respecting their overlords...

[Necroticplague]

This is just plain wrong. A prussian officer or a japanese samurai answering verbal insults with violence would act in full accordance with their respective cultures values and expectations. Failing to do so would be perceived as weak, dishonorable and in some cases literally unlawful behaviour, not "good" behaviour.

Didn't knights have a similar thing, too? Kinda like Southern U.S. used to be, an insult could be met with a beating if the insulter was of lower station. If the insulter was of higher or equal station, then the proper thing was to challenge them to a duel, instead. If they refuse to either duel or recant their statement, then they're a coward, and you're free to call them on it (and this is typically in societies where cowardice is considered a grave fault).

[erok0809]

Im not certain i would like to know in what kind of hell hole farmers still get smacked around for not respecting their overlords...

He said peasant, not farmer. I'm thinking about in a medieval-type society, not modern day.

[Deadline]

He said peasant, not farmer. I'm thinking about in a medieval-type society, not modern day.

I'd like to just say that if you haven't grown up around a farming community, you'll probably be surprised at how often differences of opinion are resolved via fisticuffs, or in the more remote regions, actual violence (the lethal kind - admittedly rare). If that is to be considered evil, most of the U.S. farming communities can be considered downright diabolical.

[Chester]

Hello, OP here! :smallbiggrin:

There's a lot to respond to, and thanks for the feedback.

I spoke with the DM, and an agreement has been reached:

no alignment change
I'll go along with his plan (rotating DMs ensure this is short term)
Alignment changes are addressed by group, not DM fiat
Admission that the punishment didn't fit the crime; the reaction was about the sense of derailment, not about the act itself.


I'm fine with this. I don't like his DM style, but it's not a permanent thing, but he's a friend, so whatever.

[TheYell]

This is just plain wrong. A prussian officer or a japanese samurai answering verbal insults with violence would act in full accordance with their respective cultures values and expectations. Failing to do so would be perceived as weak, dishonorable and in some cases literally unlawful behaviour, not "good" behaviour.

In fact the French Army of the Second Empire cashiered at least one officer for declining to duel ("The French Foreign Legion", Donald Porch).

[BowStreetRunner]

[COLOR="#800080"]For the record, OP, if smacking a friend because he's making an idiot of himself were an Evil act, Leroy Jethro Gibbs would be Asmodeus....The guy is so LG it hurts.

He is so LG that LG are actually his initials. But let's not forget that he did murder the man who killed his wife and child. One evil act does not necessarily cause an alignment change. Alignment is something much more ingrained in a character's personality than that.

[Red Fel]

He is so LG that LG are actually his initials. But let's not forget that he did murder the man who killed his wife and child. One evil act does not necessarily cause an alignment change. Alignment is something much more ingrained in a character's personality than that.

In many ways, that act defines him. The loss defines him too. Point is, when you take a character who committed one cold (arguably Evil) act, and then turn their entire life into a sort of atonement for that act, you get a guy who is capital-L, capital-G, Leroy Jethro Freaking Gibbs, one of the most awesome modern Paladin archetypes ever.

And a dude who smacks his coworkers-slash-sort-of-dysfunctional-family around so much it's a signature.

[bean illus]

Where the H3(( do you people live? with your moms? Smacking a sh1t mouth is evil? Where is that a law? San Francisco? lol


snip. Kinda like Southern U.S. used to be, an insult could be met with a beating if the insulter was of lower station. If the insulter was of higher or equal station, then the proper thing was to challenge them to a duel, instead. If they refuse to either duel or recant their statement, then they're a coward, and you're free to call them on it (and this is typically in societies where cowardice is considered a grave fault).

Are there societies where cowardice is not considered a grave fault? How does that work exactly?


I'd like to just say that if you haven't grown up around a farming community, you'll probably be surprised at how often differences of opinion are resolved via fisticuffs, or in the more remote regions, actual violence (the lethal kind - admittedly rare). If that is to be considered evil, most of the U.S. farming communities can be considered downright diabolical.

This is more like where i live. Most folks I know would hardly ever call a cop, and certainly not for a few smacks. In fact, even though our cops are great guys, the act of calling a cop as retaliation for a fisticuffs would be seen as a petty escalation, and potentially evil.

Luckily, since our cops are cool here, if they did get called they would tell everybody go home, and talk about it in the morning.

Honestly, you might be surprised how well folks mind their manners when getting smacked for disrespect is prevalent. Teach 'em young and you won't have that problem.

[Nifft]

Are there societies where cowardice is not considered a grave fault? How does that work exactly?
Some people don't consider it cowardice to avoid violence. They would call their values "civilized", and claim that it seems to work pretty well.


This is more like where i live. Most folks I know would hardly ever call a cop, and certainly not for a few smacks. In fact, even though our cops are great guys, the act of calling a cop as retaliation for a fisticuffs would be seen as a petty escalation, and potentially evil. That sounds a lot like the morality I experienced as a kid in school: telling an authority figure was a MUCH worse crime than the physical abuse of a peer.


Honestly, you might be surprised how well folks mind their manners when getting smacked for disrespect is prevalent. Teach 'em young and you won't have that problem. "An armed society is a polite society", right?

That seems like a thing which could be tested: see if you can observe people being more or less polite (on average) in several different societies which differ by how they handle disrespect.

[Rakoa]

Did someone say Chaotic Evil lawyer?

https://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fletcher-Reede.jpg

http://voice.fan.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Saul-Goodman-1.jpg

[SinsI]

What about Robin Hood? I know of no civilized society that considers theft a good thing, and yet he's often considered CG. Also, would anyone be up for moving this discussion to a separate thread to curtail the derailment?
Import and export dues are common in civilized societies.
At that time, local feudals that owned the armed forces had the right to set tax duties.
Since it was Robin Hood who had his forest under control, you can treat it as an independent state in which he had the right to set passage fees.
So if a merchant has to give Robin Hood 50% of his goods to pass through untouched it is all legal and civilized.

So just like with taxes, it depends on what you use them for - if like local lords you waste them on constant debauchery and gluttony it is a bad thing, but if you use them for tax returns (which is what Robin Hood did) or for some other societal good it is a good thing.

[Evolved Shrimp]

What about Robin Hood? I know of no civilized society that considers theft a good thing

Well, that’s only if you define “theft” as “taking things away from others when inappropriate”; but then the statement becomes circular.

There are, in fact, many instances where actions that could be classified as theft are considered OK or are even applauded.

For example, in some societies based on rearing livestock, the occasional raid on the livestock of other tribes or villages is considered a normal activity and a way to prove ones mettle.

The bible expressly classifies taking food from the field or orchard of another as an acceptable act if no tools are used and the food is intended for immediate consumption.

Taxes are generally considered a good thing – they allow the state to run and organize many useful things that might otherwise not happen – but in practice, they can be surprisingly hard to differentiate from organized theft. For example, taxes can be selectively imposed or collected to target specific industries or companies at the behest of their competition. Would a powerful company directly take money from another company, we’e probably call that theft. Is it something different if that same company gets tame politicians to pass a law to take that money?

And taxing in premodern times was much more of a ballpark thing because there was normally no bookkeeping: The tax collector (who may have bought the right to collect these taxes for a lump sum from the ruler and been out to make as much of a profit as possible) collected what he thought (or said he thought) an appropriate amount of tax. So, for example, paying “the tenth” doesn’t sound too bad. But the practice could be more like, “Well, you claim that these two tons of corn are your entire harvest. But seeing how the weather was so good, you must obviously have harvested another six tons and have hidden them somewhere. Therefore, I’m taxing you 0.8 tons. Plus half a ton for trying to lie to His Majesty’s tax collector.” If Robin Hood takes these kinds of taxes back, is that theft?

Closer to home, the USA is founded on stolen (or, more accurately, robbed) land. At least until the recent past, this has generally been viewed as not a problem and in fact been glorified in quite a few popular movies.

So whether an act of taking something is theft and whether that is considered good or bad seems to depend a lot on the circumstances and the perspective.

[Andezzar]

So whether an act of taking something is theft and whether that is considered good or bad seems to depend a lot on the circumstances and the perspective.That is a real world attitude, but it has little to do with D&D's universal forces of good, evil, law and chaos.

[Twurps]

That is a real world attitude, but it has little to do with D&D's universal forces of good, evil, law and chaos.
not realy...



So whether an act of taking something is theft and whether that is considered good or bad seems to depend a lot on the circumstances the game setting and the perspective kind of scenario the DM is running.

See?

If anything, Universal forces of good in D&D are more liberal than the real world, given the fact that the 'goodest' of them all paladin is supposed to smite evil, an act that the real world would simply label as murder.

[sovin_ndore]

At threat of derailing this thread, I will point out that what we are discussing here is really about interpretation of philisophical concepts. The set of written rules don't even give us concrete examples of alignment, much less a concrete system for tracking changes.

This whole discussion serves as an example of how the alignment system as a whole fails at its intended goal. Most acts can (as exampled here) be rationalized as whatever alignment you want it to be and there are no real mechanics involved in the determination of alignment.

I feel like if you want to play with alignment, that is pretty much free form RP and therefore entirely DM fiat.

[Jormengand]

The set of written rules don't even give us concrete examples of alignment

That's pretty patently untrue. The BoEF even gives examples of how different alignments get it on, and the BoED and BoVD give tons upon tons of good and evil acts as examples of what they mean.

[sovin_ndore]

That's pretty patently untrue. The BoEF even gives examples of how different alignments get it on, and the BoED and BoVD give tons upon tons of good and evil acts as examples of what they mean.

Perhaps saying that there was no attempt at 'examples' was poor word choice. There are attempts to define the nature of alignments but there are no examples that can be used to define the scope of aligments or enlighten a discussion regarding alignment change. To the extent of examples sremotely resembling concrete mechanics, it fails. There is no scale of 'sins' against your alignment.

We can all agree that alignment can shift... there are items that change it, spells that restore it, and reprocussions relative to retaining class features. There is even a Perapht that tells you when you might be threatening change to your alignment if you are having trouble coming to an accord with your DM. But in the end there are absolutely no rules about where the borders of an aligment are, what it takes to overstep those, etc. All of this comes down to storytelling and essentially accord between DM and players.

[Arbane]

This whole discussion serves as an example of how the alignment system as a whole fails at its intended goal. Most acts can (as exampled here) be rationalized as whatever alignment you want it to be and there are no real mechanics involved in the determination of alignment.

Is trying to rules-lawyer your alignment a Lawful or Chaotic act? :smallbiggrin:

(In general, I agree with you The D&D alignment system doesn't actually make a lot of sense applied to human behavior. I like an idea I saw in some 'Old School' retroclone: Alignment simply determines which gods like you.)

[Sagetim]

Short version: A DM threatened a punitive alignment change if I followed through with hitting an NPC tavern owner for repeatedly insulting our party members, even after saving his life. 1) Are there XP penalties for an alignment change (3.5 rules) via DM fiat? 2) Is an alignment change from CG applicable for, as the DM put it, "attacking an ally?"

Long version:
Our group rotates DMs. This particular player's strengths include involved, immersive, complex plots. The weakness that accompanies this is that there's no room for variation. If you behave in a manner that changes the plot or "messes with" his NPCs, he will declare that we're "rewinding" and altering things to get back on track.

In this particular adventure, there was commotion in the town involving a ranting and raving (obviously frightened) man. When one of our party members went to investigate, an NPC told him to "mind your own effing business" and was called all manner of abusive things.

OK, fine.

The town is attacked. We all fight side by side to eliminate the threat. Mean NPC survives.

After the fight, my PC tells mean NPC, "I think you owe my friend an apology." Mean NPC hurls insults.

I declare that I'm punching him in the face for nonlethal damage.

DM: "If you do that, I'm forcing an alignment change for attacking an ally."

Ummm.......OK?

Either this guy is attempting to punish me for hitting his NPC or just doesn't understand alignment.

Either way, I'd gladly accept the change if it doesn't really come with any penalties. Or, I could just "follow the script" and wait for the next DM's turn so I can actually role play.

EDIT: Was I aware that this would upset him? Absolutely.

Weigh in here for your thoughts.

Okay. Okay...I think I know what your character needs to do. Subdue the obviously possessed man, tie him up, and take him in for an exorcism. Because he's obviously posessed by demons with how he's acting towards your characters. Seriously...the guy threw insults at people who saved his life. He was also found to be ranting and raving earlier, and threw insults at that time as well towards people who were only showing an interest in his possible well being. This npc is posessed and needs to be taken into a place where you can surround him with a magic circle against evil and a dimensional anchor and that thing that you use to bind stuff with planar summoning spells. And then you need to waterboard him with holy water. Why? Because you have to drive the demon out.


Now, that doesn't sound like the actions of a good person, does it? However, the important thing to remember about alignments is that they don't follow a modern idea of what good and evil are. This is why murder isn't always an evil act in dnd. This is why players can kill something and take it's stuff and still be good aligned in dnd. So if you rope a good priest into this, and really talk them into the idea that this guy is possessed, then you will put him through hell. And you might also drive out a demon that was secretly possessing him. Because that's an actual possibility in this situation.

That aside: This man is clearly not your ally. An ally is someone who will stand by your side and fight your enemies to the death with you. An ally is someone who will take the letter you wrote to your loved ones off your dead body and ensure it makes it to them because it's the right thing to do. An Ally will have your back in a wartime situation. This man yelling curses at your characters is not and cannot be classified as an ally. He has self identified as being hostile towards the party. And you still saved his ass. That's the actions of a good character. If you punched him? It's a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that you just saved someone who is actively hostile towards you from death. To use earlier terminology: Your Approach was to turn the other cheek and save the npcs from whatever threatened them, even the *******. Your Individual Action was to stop being nice and punch the ******* in the face. As far as I can tell, your character is not Exlated. They should not be held to the same standard as an Exalted Paladin who took a vow of nonviolence.

[Andezzar]

Okay. Okay...I think I know what your character needs to do. Subdue the obviously possessed man, tie him up, and take him in for an exorcism. Because he's obviously posessed by demons with how he's acting towards your characters.Good point and knocking him out is a pretty good way of starting that process. Not everyone has access to hold/dominate person all the time.

[Trasilor]

1. Declare your monocle pops off.
2. Remove your calfskin glove.
3. Deliver a slap across the chest with said glove.
4. Demand a duel of honour in your best British accent.
5. Insist on using the Marquess of Queensbury rules for the noble art of pugilism.
6. Proceed to said fisticuffs and give that old boy a good drubbing.

Lawful method accomplished!

Do this!

Of course, the actual first step is to put your monocle in...:smalltongue:

Also, buy the man a pint after the thorough thrashing :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Import and export dues are common in civilized societies.
At that time, local feudals that owned the armed forces had the right to set tax duties.
Since it was Robin Hood who had his forest under control, you can treat it as an independent state in which he had the right to set passage fees.
So if a merchant has to give Robin Hood 50% of his goods to pass through untouched it is all legal and civilized.
Slight quibble, but Robin Hood actually isn't depicted, traditionally, as robbing merchants (nor taxing them, as the case may be). He goes after the nobility, particularly the aforementioned tax collector.

[goto124]

Funny stuff

That was great :smallbiggrin:

Back on topic, it does seem to be an OOC problem. You could try talking to the DM. You could suck it up and just play along his railroads. It does seem that trying to react to the NPC in any manner other than what the DM wants will only make things worse.

At least the DMs rotate.